This has surfaced quite a bit recently with internet historians. We are to believe hundreds of seaworthy ships would be abandoned, that the captains and owners of ships decided to become miners.
How is it explained that some ships when buried were farther out from what we are to presume was the old shoreline? Would not the tide or some authority have moved them one way or another long before then?
The ships buried more inland are in places apparently not accessible to ships at the time, the shore did not go inland that far according to other depictions.
It appears the mint governors are paying attention to the internet scholarship, or why would they suddenly make this page with redundant yet skimpy details? As if to tell the platforms "this is the doctrine about the buried ships of San Francisco, update your community notes and fact checking."
Sure enough, google AI gave this very link immediately for several useless references when pushed for records.
NHQ•7mo ago
How is it explained that some ships when buried were farther out from what we are to presume was the old shoreline? Would not the tide or some authority have moved them one way or another long before then?
The ships buried more inland are in places apparently not accessible to ships at the time, the shore did not go inland that far according to other depictions.
It appears the mint governors are paying attention to the internet scholarship, or why would they suddenly make this page with redundant yet skimpy details? As if to tell the platforms "this is the doctrine about the buried ships of San Francisco, update your community notes and fact checking."
Sure enough, google AI gave this very link immediately for several useless references when pushed for records.